↓ Skip to main content

Formal procedure to facilitate the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining interventions in a neonatal intensive care unit: a seven-year retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Formal procedure to facilitate the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining interventions in a neonatal intensive care unit: a seven-year retrospective study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12904-018-0329-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. Sorin, R. Vialet, B. Tosello

Abstract

Neonatal deaths are often associated with the complex decision to limit or withdraw life-sustaining interventions (LSIs) rather than therapeutic impasses. Despite the existence of a law, significant disparities in clinical procedures remain. This study aimed to assess deaths occurring in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and measure the impact of a traceable Limitation or Withdrawal of Active Treatment (LWAT) file on the treatment of these newborns. In this monocentric retrospective study, we reviewed all consecutive neonatal deaths occurring during two three-year periods among patients in the NICU at the North Hospital of Marseille: cohort 1 (from 2009 to 2011 without the LWAT file) and cohort 2 (from 2013 to 2015 after introduction of the LWAT file). Newborns included were: gestational age over 22 weeks, birth weight over 500 g, and admission and death in the same NICU. Deaths were categorized according to the classification described by Verhagen et al.: 1) children who died despite cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (no withholding nor withdrawing of LSIs), (2) children who died while the ventilator, without CPR (no withdrawing of LSIs, but CPR withheld), (3) children who died after LSIs were withdrawn, or (4) LSIs were withheld. 193 deaths were analyzed: 77 in cohort 1 and 116 in cohort 2. 50% of deaths followed the decision to limit or stop life-sustaining interventions. The mean age at death did not differ between the two cohorts (p = 0.525). An increase in the mortality rate after life-sustaining interventions were withdrawn was observed. The number of multidisciplinary decision meetings was statistically higher in cohort 2 (32.5% versus 55.2% p = 0.002), which were most often prompted due to neurological pathologies, with an increase in parental advice concerning the management of their child (p = 0.026). Even if the introduction of this file did not have an effect on patient age at death, it was significantly associated with a better understanding of end-of-life conditions (p = 0.019), including medication used to sedate and comfort the patient. Introduction of the LWAT file seems imperative to develop a personalized healthcare strategy for each child and situation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 15 15%
Student > Master 15 15%
Researcher 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Unspecified 15 15%
Psychology 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 23 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,949,331
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#343
of 1,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,460
of 328,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#17
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.